Bill wouldn't solve redistricting woes

Your May 29 editorial scolded me for removing a legislative redistricting bill from the agenda of the State Government Committee, which I chair. A little state history and perspective are in order.

State Rep. BABETTE JOSEPHS

Your May 29 editorial scolded me for removing a legislative redistricting bill from the agenda of the State Government Committee, which I chair. A little state history and perspective are in order.

The existing constitutional system for redistricting the General Assembly was initiated by the Constitutional Convention of 1967-68. This voter-approved change to the process was hailed by press and governmental reform groups as critically important reform.

Forty years later there is undoubtedly room for some improvement so that less oddly shaped, stretched or carved up legislative districts are created. Many government reform groups coalesced around House Bill 2420 which was referred to the State Government Committee only 22 days ago. Sharing their hope for reform of the process, I scheduled a vote on the bill.

However, after I analyzed House Bill 2420 more thoroughly and contacted the Legislative Reference Bureau, the office that would be charged with implementing the new procedures, I realized that House Bill 2420 is not reform. Instead it is reform regression.

First, as currently drafted, House Bill 2420 would give full and complete authority to a bureaucrat to make hundreds of critical decisions creating new districts, eliminating existing districts and significantly altering many more without any public notice requirements. And furthermore, this faceless paper shuffler is accountable to and controlled by the General Assembly itself. Why would anyone consider this scheme reform?

Moreover, the director of this well-respected bureau informed me that his office did not have the expertise to carry out the requirements of this legislation. Additionally, House Bill 2420 proposes that disagreements between dueling redistricting plans be settled by casting lots, essentially reducing critically important policy resolutions to a coin toss. What is reforming about that?

Finally, House Bill 2420 has an absolute ban on the use of historical electoral statistics in formulating a legislative district plan.

Referencing these statistics is the only way possible to draw legislative districts that are competitive between the political parties. Reformers have said that creating competitive districts is an important public policy value.

While I commend the Pocono Record for championing changes to the redistricting process, I also know that it must be done right. I am very willing to examine alternative proposals that would improve on the current process for legislative redistricting — unfortunately, the bill that was to be considered is a step backward.

Passing a bill, any bill, details be damned, just because it is labeled reform, is not reform.

State Rep. Babette Josephs is a Democrat in the Pennsylvania General Assembly who represents the 182nd District near Philadelphia. She chairs the House State Government Committee.